He's makes some good points even if he's a hypocrite. I don't care much for PSG but City spending feck loads has a direct impact on us. So I'm all for UEFA screwing over City.
BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play
- Thread starter #07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
He's makes some good points even if he's a hypocrite. I don't care much for PSG but City spending feck loads has a direct impact on us. So I'm all for UEFA screwing over City.
And in turn, you are fundamentally wrong. It doesn't distort competition, it doesn't even change the oligopole nature of the market what it does is change the name of the members of the oligopole while for 99% of clubs it changes nothing, they can't compete with Real Madrid and they still can't compete with PSG/City.
Here the fundamental question isn't about market distortion by PSG and City but about how the UEFA should and could create artificial barriers to entry that would maintain a certain oligopole.
The question is, should the UEFA do that and do they have a compelling argument to do it? Personally I'm on the fence.
I wonder why Nike only pay you lot 20m whereas they're paying Chelsea 60m and Adidas are paying United 75m.
Something to do with a lack of Abu Dhabi shirt manufacturer?
I wonder why Nike only pay you lot 20m whereas they're paying Chelsea 60m and Adidas are paying United 75m.
Something to do with a lack of Abu Dhabi shirt manufacturer?
Because United and Chelsea have signed their deals far more recently than City perhaps? The Nike deal runs out in the next 18 months - let's see what our next kit deal is worth eh?
The worst thing about FFP is how City etc can use Utds deals as benchmarks to clean their money.
Its like the mafia running millions through a local chip van while claiming to earn as much as a 5 star restaurant.
"Fair market value."
Its like the mafia running millions through a local chip van while claiming to earn as much as a 5 star restaurant.
"Fair market value."
You could make more money with a well placed chip van than a 5 star restaurant, mainly because 5 star restaurants cost a lot of money.
City's Nike deal started from 2013, ManUtd's from 2015 and Liverpool's from 2012. IIRC Liverpool got more than City even though they signed year before City.
According to your list you should be getting the 4th biggest deal in world football (only below Real, Bayern & United). I wonder if that'll happen.
It was actually announced at the back end of the 2011-12 season and came in in 2013, but was effectively just a re-negotiation of Nike-owned Umbro's deal which was first signed in 2009. I reckon we could easily get upwards of £40 million a year for our new kit deal regardless of who it's with.
Even if Tebas' motives are selfish that doesn't exactly indicate him being inaccurate in anything he says surely?
You stated yourself that you believe the link you shared was inaccurate so I would not put much stock into it. It is not denigrating City as a club at all, you simply didn't have much of a following previously and it takes a good amount of time to establish that because whilst it is fun to joke about Chelsea fans being glory hunters and switching clubs, supporters switching teams isn't commonplace in real terms. You are definitely on the up and if you continue having big name players and being competitive (which is a fair assumption) you will shoot up that brand value list. Little things like say having the player on the cover of Fifa has a big impact on younger fans aligning themselves with a club. The fact remains right now that your numbers support wise are in a similar bracket to Spurs, a decent whack below the bigger 4.
According to your list you should be getting the 4th biggest deal in world football (only below Real, Bayern & United). I wonder if that'll happen.
Sorry, who's list? It isn't mine mate. It's been calculated by an impartial organisation and a club's brand value doesn't just come down to shirt sales. It's 2017, not 1987
What a load of rubbish
Do explain why you get so much less from the shirt manufacturers compared to all other top clubs? Are we to believe that City's magical commercial department who are getting similar deals to United & Real from all sorts of random sponsors somehow fail miserably when it comes to negotiating with Nike or Adidas & co?Sorry, who's list? It isn't mine mate. It's been calculated by an impartial organisation and a club's brand value doesn't just come down to shirt sales. It's 2017, not 1987
Not so much inaccurate as hypocritical which makes it all rather laughable.
We discussed the rest of your post last night and were in broad agreement. My point to the other poster was that City are in a far less precarious position under our ownership today than we were several years ago. The "if the Sheikh walks away..." line held more relevance in the past than it does now
Because, like I explained in a previous post, it's over 6 years since it was last negotiated. You make it sound like it was signed yesterday ffs
The deal is due to expire shortly and a new one will be signed, either with Nike or someone else (strong rumours of Under Armour), then we'll see what it's worth.Sorry, who's list? It isn't mine mate. It's been calculated by an impartial organisation and a club's brand value doesn't just come down to shirt sales. It's 2017, not 1987
This is why you don't argue with City and PSG fans. It's like running your head directly into a brick wall.
I know very little about the bloke but if he is a Real Madrid fan as stated then he is definitely hypocritical but aren't we all at times? I think he raises some good points mixed in with bit of childish "my dads bigger than your dad".
That side of it is one that I don't really bother looking at purely because he isn't going to walk away, as much as I would like it if he did. Trying to consider what that would look like is incredibly complex at this point in time. Your current squad alone is worth more than your club was when he took over, even adjusting for inflation it is pretty close. My guess would be that people saying you would revert to being a relegation candidate are hopeful at best but you would also have a hell of a lot of cut backs on operating costs of course. Tricky scenario to guess the outcome to.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22625156Because, like I explained in a previous post, it's over 6 years since it was last negotiated. You make it sound like it was signed yesterday ffs
2013 was 4 years ago, and apparently it's only £12m/year, not £20m.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16627867
Liverpool got double that 1 year earlier.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25909397
Arsenal got even more 1 year later.
As for the last part, do you want to bet on it being the 4th highest in the world at that point?
The ones on here seem decent but I think one point being missed that even if certain organisations rate City's brand highly that is partly due to these organisations belief that Mansour will be there continually supplementing the club to the point they can purchase marketable players who make them competitive. It isn't done through the eyes of a perspective new owner which would be a fairer means of actual gauging the value of the name "Manchester City" or "PSG".
Does anyone else think it's stupid that UEFA / Barca / La Liga are only bothered about this now? Years after both clubs got their owners? It speaks more about them crying about a top Spanish club having their players poached than any moralistic argument.
So many precious City fans on here. Let's face it, no one would give a rats fart about your club if you hadn't won the lottery. Your sponsorships deals are dodgy at best. None of this is denigrating the club but just stating facts. Now it's entirely possible your brand value has gone up considerably in the last few years but that's a direct result of these fake sponsorships that you've used to spend a pot load of cash to buy players. Whether this should or should not be allowed is a different issue but it's baffling that there are City fans who deny all of the above. The delusion is massive.
I'm not sure why you're aiming that at me - I've only been following City since the money came in.
All the deals are signed well before they became official.
Every club negotiate their shirt deals well in advance, do you think Liverpool or Arsenal made those deals in the last couple of weeks?
City had already won the title in 11/12, so you've added 1 more in 13/14, I'm not sure that'd make as significant a difference as that. Also, above I've compared you to Liverpool and Arsenal, 2 clubs nowhere near the top of y̶o̶u̶r̶ list you provided, which has you ranked above the likes of Chelsea and Barcelona.
Anyway, I'm happy to take that bet, just a minor change, I'll give you upto 5th biggest in the world at the time it's announced, on the condition that the shirt manufacturer are not based in the middle east.
City had already won the title in 11/12, so you've added 1 more in 13/14, I'm not sure that'd make as significant a difference as that. Also, above I've compared you to Liverpool and Arsenal, 2 clubs nowhere near the top of y̶o̶u̶r̶ list you provided, which has you ranked above the likes of Chelsea and Barcelona.
Anyway, I'm happy to take that bet, just a minor change, I'll give you upto 5th biggest in the world at the time it's announced, on the condition that the shirt manufacturer are not based in the middle east.
Can't argue with that.
Cool
It's one thing us football fans being hypocritical but the head of La Liga ought to be more constructive in his arguments - maybe he's been taking lessons off Trump in the art of being tactful!
Much of the second bit would depend on who he sold the club to - sell it to a hugely successful organisation and we should be ok, but sell it to Ridsdale and relegation would be the least of our worries
Not 1 City player is in the top 30 shirt sellers from Sports Direct last year
http://www.football365.com/news/pogba-and-lukaku-top-the-list-of-uk-shirt-sellers
http://www.football365.com/news/pogba-and-lukaku-top-the-list-of-uk-shirt-sellers
Which is exactly why we should be thankful that Chelsea and City were given the requisite investment to make the league much more competitive.
But it would be a good starting point to making football a fairer game financially. Make it so that the likes of City, PSG, United and Madrid can't significantly outspend each other, and then focus on redistributing revenue more evenly so that clubs like Burnley and Las Palmas can start to spend a bit more.
Why would anyone want that?
I'm all for FFP being much stricter because it helps United stay at (near) the very top echelon of football, not for some socialist ideal of redistribution of wealth.
Why would anyone want that?
I'm all for FFP being much stricter because it helps United stay at (near) the very top echelon of football, not for some socialist ideal of redistribution of wealth.
Well it's a shame you feel that way, but at least you're honest about it.
I've said it before, I'm more a United fan than a football fan, and I've a long history of advocating United try to break the PL TV deal.
I've said it before, I'm more a United fan than a football fan, and I've a long history of advocating United try to break the PL TV deal.
Would you rather have United win the league every season by fifteen points for the next ten years, or win four or five in some thrilling title races? I wouldn't have traded City's win in 2012 for another five titles. It's competition that makes the victories worthwhile.
Tebas might be a hypocrite, but he makes some valid point points and I hope the investigation prospers. We are by our own rights the richest club in the world, and it should be us who should be gunning for the Neymar's and Mbappe's of the world, not clubs that won the natural gas lottery of Qatar or Abu Dhabi.
I've said it before, I'm more a United fan than a football fan, and I've a long history of advocating United try to break the PL TV deal.
Might not proclaim it like Barcelona, but United is very much a club with a clear social identity ( perhaps not always on the field ) and part of it, even though, again, not publicized, is almost irreproachable insofar as behaviour towards the footballing community is concerned.
Tebas' latest comments also suggests we could have agreed the Neymar deal before PSG but decided not to since Barcelona would have very much opposed it.
"It's not that I don't like PSG. If Neymar had gone to Man United, it wouldn't have been as important to take this to the courts. They are not financial doping.
I'm guessing the appearance of Newcastle players in the list probably lends itself to Ashley giving exclusivity to his own sportswear company to sell Newcastle shirts.